Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    And anyone who thinks the Pre's camera is better than the iPhone's can't be taken seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by chud311 View Post
    i am not to be taken seriously then, after having used both extensively side by side.
    careful! they are so vulnerable!

    Last edited by windzilla; 11/29/2009 at 03:42 PM.
    There are four lights.
  2. Fihiro's Avatar
    Posts
    46 Posts
    Global Posts
    48 Global Posts
       #22  
    Perhaps the reason why the camera takes pictures with as high of a frame rate as it does is due in part of a cranked ISO? Then perhaps they need to compensate for it by getting rid of the noise in post-(over)processing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadavis08 View Post
    if you want it build it. If you want the software either make it or wait like the rest of us . Hey that's just me, personaly I bought a phone with a pretty good camra not a camra with a phone.
    I would love to build it, I do not know how, perhaps you can give me a direction to start?
    I don't think the SDK will let me do that. But I would love it if you pointed me to somewhere were i Can start playing around with this stuff.

    PS: You didnt buy a phone with a pretty good camera. You bought a phone with a great camera, its just a shame the post-(over)processing kills it.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Fihiro View Post
    Perhaps the reason why the camera takes pictures with as high of a frame rate as it does is due in part of a cranked ISO? Then perhaps they need to compensate for it by getting rid of the noise in post-(over)processing.
    yea, i have been wondering this myself. I feel that the noise reduction will increase noise in some instances. I really would like an advanced menu that let's a user tweak ISO and processing, even if it is simply a 3 or 4 level setting for "sharpness" and a brightness function.

    I also notice that all of the exposure settings are set by whatever is in the cross hairs, it doesn't seem to compensate for the entire picture, or perform a center weighted average, it seems more spot to me. Would love to be able to control this as well.
  4. #24  
    My camera works fine, phone even better
    Phones in Family pre> pre> pre> Centro> Rant
  5. vnmous1's Avatar
    Posts
    173 Posts
    Global Posts
    315 Global Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Fihiro View Post
    This is starting to agitate me a bit.
    The camera technology that the pre has is amazing for its size, however, I think they butchered it with that post-production in-phone image touch up technology.

    Allow me to summarize the process of this picture taking.

    1) Take Photo
    2) Amazing Photo!
    3) RUIN IT WITH SOFTWARE.

    Case in point:
    Photo

    Now lets zoom in to 1:1.

    Photo Zoomed

    If you look on his cheek, the camera can resolve the PEACH fuzz on his face!
    Amazing! But, look elsewhere and it looks like a watercolor. I will GLADLY take a photo with a little bit of noise and more detail resolve than a watercolored piece of ****.

    Uh, Rembrandt. Garbage in, garbage out. You're shooting into sunlight.

    Cameras don't kill pictures. People kill pictures.

    bj
  6. Fihiro's Avatar
    Posts
    46 Posts
    Global Posts
    48 Global Posts
       #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by vnmous1 View Post
    Uh, Rembrandt. Garbage in, garbage out. You're shooting into sunlight.

    Cameras don't kill pictures. People kill pictures.

    bj
    Direct sunlight does not create a watercolor effect that permeates through every photo the pre takes =p

    I used that photo to show that the camera is capable of resolving much more detail (peach fuzz!) than the software allows it to.

    Another Example for you
    Cropped
  7. #27  
    I don't think it's so much post-processing as it is over-compressing the JPG file. It would probably be relatively easy for Palm to add an option for setting the compression level in the camera. Inexpensive (ie around $100) digital cameras are the same way. They don't give you a choice of compression/quality settings, and image quality suffers at 1:1 zoom.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by vnmous1 View Post
    Uh, Rembrandt. Garbage in, garbage out. You're shooting into sunlight.

    Cameras don't kill pictures. People kill pictures.

    bj
    +1
  9. DocHemi's Avatar
    Posts
    281 Posts
    Global Posts
    285 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by chud311 View Post
    teh iphone can neva looz!
    Now if we could only teach you to spell LOL
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    That's weird. The iPhone has one of the best cameras in the industry. It is consistently reviewed better than cameras with higher megapixels. The 3GS camera is even better. I don't think the difference is in the hardware as much as it is the software. That is something that I doubt is high on Palm's priority list as they have more important things to deal with. They also may not have the expertise. Do they have any experience making cameras or image processing software? A good camera phone takes a lot more than just ordering parts and slapping them in a device.
    Okay Mr. Steve Jobs. Oh, here's a napkin for the... *walks away flipping the bird*
  11. #31  
    I honestly dig the camera, it totally rocks compared to my friends bb and Iphone
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by chud311 View Post
    teh iphone can neva looz!
    lulz
  13. Daemon's Avatar
    Posts
    796 Posts
    Global Posts
    809 Global Posts
    #33  
    Yes the Pre has aggressive and noticeable compression, compared
    to a dedicated digital camera. That's so it can maintain a reasonably
    quick shot to shot time, and keep the photo app responsive,
    while not filling the memory up with crap, because frankly most
    shots you or I or anyone ever takes with a cell phone, are crap, and
    there are very few keepers worth showing anyone else.

    Compared to other cell phone cameras, the Pre's rocks.
    I've gotten nothing but complements from people who've
    seen photos of mine from this camera. It has impressed me
    with its light handling, color balance, and clarity, and nobody
    has detected that they're cell phone pics, which can't be said
    of any other cell phone camera I've used.

    If I want higher quality photos, I've got a real camera for that.

    ian
    Attached Images Attached Images
  14. Fihiro's Avatar
    Posts
    46 Posts
    Global Posts
    48 Global Posts
       #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
    Yes the Pre has aggressive and noticeable compression, compared
    to a dedicated digital camera. That's so it can maintain a reasonably
    quick shot to shot time
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't saving an un-processed image take less time? As opposed to capturing, converting, then saving.

    I could be wrong
  15. vnmous1's Avatar
    Posts
    173 Posts
    Global Posts
    315 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Fihiro View Post
    Direct sunlight does not create a watercolor effect that permeates through every photo the pre takes =p

    I used that photo to show that the camera is capable of resolving much more detail (peach fuzz!) than the software allows it to.

    Another Example for you
    Cropped

    You're kidding, right? I thought that in your earlier post you used a couple of terms that made me consider that you'd taken a photo or two in your life. Possibly even a class (or at least read a book about it).

    Go find out HOW they're sucking the pic in (your "zoom") and you'll see why you're seeing what you describe as "watercolors".

    At the end of the day, you can't take a 3mp point-and-shoot and this phone and compare the two. Lens, in and of itself, is key. Again, garbage in-garbage out (this time I'm not talking about you shooting into sunlight, but the fact that a megapixel "rating" has little to do with the quality of your camera/phone. It only has to do with capacity of a shot, not necessarily quality. Too many other factors involved there.)

    And by the way, your second picture isn't "cropped". This "cropping" is nothing more than sucking the picture in so the trees don't show. What you're seeing in the cropped shot is the same as the first one. Just closer. As for the picture itself, were you trying to accomplish something by shooting from "cover" into an open, sunny setting? You're making that camera work REALLY hard. There is no pinpointing on this camera to have it meter a particular area. Your shade caused the camera to stay open longer and the sunny part is overexposed. Now, suck that in and the overexposure will be very apparent; thus your problem with the cropped shot.

    bj
    Last edited by vnmous1; 11/30/2009 at 07:07 AM.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Fihiro View Post
    This is starting to agitate me a bit.
    The camera technology that the pre has is amazing for its size, however, I think they butchered it with that post-production in-phone image touch up technology.

    Allow me to summarize the process of this picture taking.

    1) Take Photo
    2) Amazing Photo!
    3) RUIN IT WITH SOFTWARE.

    Case in point:
    Photo

    Now lets zoom in to 1:1.

    Photo Zoomed

    If you look on his cheek, the camera can resolve the PEACH fuzz on his face!
    Amazing! But, look elsewhere and it looks like a watercolor. I will GLADLY take a photo with a little bit of noise and more detail resolve than a watercolored piece of ****.
    Can you imagine your post without the title and the last three words?

    You'd look 100% more mature
    and 70% more likely to get help.

    ---

    Practice what you preach.
    From those mythical lands beyond the great USA...

    It is a convergence device not mankind's disc/filmography.
  17. cfbauer's Avatar
    Posts
    179 Posts
    Global Posts
    206 Global Posts
    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by vnmous1 View Post
    You're kidding, right? I thought that in your earlier post you used a couple of terms that made me consider that you'd taken a photo or two in your life. Possibly even a class (or at least read a book about it).

    Go find out HOW they're sucking the pic in (your "zoom") and you'll see why you're seeing what you describe as "watercolors".
    Regardless of his word choice, the effect he's talking about is very real. In fact, it does remind me quite a bit of the watercolor filter in Photoshop.

    Lets all take a deep breath. Constructive criticism is ok. Fantastic things don't get made by not nit-picking.
  18. Fihiro's Avatar
    Posts
    46 Posts
    Global Posts
    48 Global Posts
       #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Teso Dos Bichos View Post
    Can you imagine your post without the title and the last three words?

    You'd look 100% more mature
    and 70% more likely to get help.

    ---

    Practice what you preach.
    I am sorry to have offended you. However, I do not think my post is a personal attack on anyone, nor do I find it immature at all. My last 3 words were for emphasis, and the title is to get as many people aware of the problem as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnmous1 View Post
    You're kidding, right? I thought that in your earlier post you used a couple of terms that made me consider that you'd taken a photo or two in your life. Possibly even a class (or at least read a book about it). j
    I do not feel I have to prove to you anything about my personal life, however many others have agreed with me that the 'problem' is real.

    My intentions are not to offend anyone, I personally don't know why people are getting so offended. Numerous times I've stated that the camera is great, it just has 1 overall (large) flaw.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by cfbauer View Post
    Regardless of his word choice, the effect he's talking about is very real. In fact, it does remind me quite a bit of the watercolor filter in Photoshop.

    Lets all take a deep breath. Constructive criticism is ok. Fantastic things don't get made by not nit-picking.
    well put.
    There are four lights.
  20. Daemon's Avatar
    Posts
    796 Posts
    Global Posts
    809 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Fihiro View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't saving an un-processed image take less time? As opposed to capturing, converting, then saving.

    I could be wrong
    Nope. Most of the time comes in writing the image to the media.
    There's undoubtedly a dedicated jpeg compressor in the camera's
    hardware somewhere so it does that operation very quickly. Digital
    cameras that have raw uncompressed modes, can take several seconds
    to store each image. Same with reading the images in the photo
    app. The larger the file, the longer it takes to render.

    ian
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions